After several days of lusting over old threads here, I am starting to discern the subtle differences in certain models (and developing an appreciation for older model 10s and M&Ps that I did NOT have before, especially the snubs & long thin barrels).

This got me to thinking.....Was there any real "reason" that the "diamond" grips were discontinued in 1968?? Or just changing styles? Just curious, Thanks,Bill

Like most changes on S&W revolvers over the past 50 years, I'd expect that this one too was cost-driven.

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

S&W are currently making them

__________________
SWCA#2208
KK4EMO

The 1968 Gun Control Act-there was a special provision regarding deletion of non purpose driven ornamentals on guns and the ATF ruled that the diamond on the grips fit the definition and they had to go. Silly-you betcha but try teiling that to the government.

__________________
Forum consigliere

I always thought it was a cost cutting measure by the Company to save money by cutting out a step or two.

Smith & Wesson CURRENTLY makes NO GRIPS. They are made by outside vendors and sold by S&W.

Chief38

Altamont makes a nice Dymondwood representation of the diamond grip.......although IMO they don't look right on anything but the new gen S&W revolvers.

Is the ATF thing a joke? Non purpose driven ornamentals?

Altamont stocks are nice, but I agree they don't look good on anything but new production guns. Too glossy.

I don't know if that ATF thing is true, but it sure made for a good laugh.

I believe it was cost reduction as the directive to delete the diamond on all styles and sizes of stocks except target stocks was issued in January 1966. NT and KT stocks were delayed until the end of 1967.

Bill

Altamont grips are laminated thin layers of wood (plywood) old Smith grips were solid wood. Not historical or proper, but I like them.

Attached Images

64-5 buff 009.jpg (51.4 KB, 397 views)

You have GOT to be ______ing me!!!

I have never known the man of wealth and taste to lie.

__________________
Who are those guys?

Smith factory grips from the 70s, top two are Altamont

Attached Images

Spring , Mod. 64(3) 009.jpg (35.3 KB, 652 views)

I have always wondered the same thing about the dropping of the diamond on the grip.
Thats what I like about this forum, lots of different opinions are given on any subject.
Cajunlawyer makes a good case on the subject and so do several others.
Sounds reasonable to me.


_______
James

You guys are just supplying Caj with a list of suckers, er, I mean potential customers for his next gun sale.

I know who will represent me if I ever get jammed up in the state of LA. True or not, the man has a way of making a convincing argument.

I assume that all grips are made on some kind of profiling machining I don't see how removing the diamond is going to save any money. it is still going to the same size piece of wood. now days a CNC machine is probably used and in any case the machine isn't going to know if the diamond is there or not. to me there has to be another reason whether it is logical or not.

My reasoning would apply to "coke" grips as well

When I first heard the "cost-saving measure" expanation in another thread (after I posted this thread!!) I thought the same thing - even given the scale of S&W production, that couldn't save THAT much $$. Of course, wasn't it a one dollar savings that doomed the triplelock!!

The old machines that made the stocks were nothing like modern CNC machines.
There was a CONSIDERABLE amount of manual labor involved in finishing grip panels after they came out of machine including work to the top of the diamond and escutcheon.
As time progressed, machines got better but cuts were made to save any labor.
Why do you suppose S&W completely shut down the wood dept. in 90's and started buying grips elsewhere? Because it was CHEAPER!
Here are early I and K frame stocks that have never had any of the excess wood removed by manual labor.
Note how tall and sloppy the top surface of the diamonds. If this one process was eliminated on hundreds of thousands of panels, it would save thousand and thousands and..... of dollars







JUST MY TWO CENTS

VM...My thoughts are like yours and your examples are super!!!

Bill

VM:

I always figured there was hand-work to finish up older style grips but I had never seen partially completed examples before ! Thank you for the photos !

Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

Thanks Bill and Jerry - here's a very early set of K frames that show the extended butt and the dual marks on the butt where it was held in the machine.
As I stated before, I'm sure there were upgrades and advances in the machinery over the years but I believe there has always been a lot of "hand work" to complete each panel as we see them on finished gun.

if they were doing that much extra work on the grips they must have 10,000 people working on them to keep up with production demands.

I just recently purchased a near-mint 5 inch Model 10-5 with its original solid wood grips (numbered to the revolver). I was considering replacing these small walnut grip panels with something new and much wider! But after considerable range time and getting used to proper hand placement (plus wearing GripSwell padded leather shooting gloves on my large hands), reading this thread confirmed my desire to keep my pristine '60s(?) vintage 10-5 all original since I like the true Dymondwood design with the escutcheons inside the large diamonds!

Attached Images

03-08-12_1729a.jpg (175.4 KB, 298 views)

__________________
~Jim Tidwell~1st Cav vet

and they aren't attractive, either.

Cajunlawyer

And the circle P stamped on the pistol grip of the M1 Garand indicates that it was issued to George Patton's 3rd army

if your interested in an official Patton issue M1 I have 9 of them. One even has the P in a square. Proof p in a box was used by the Red River Depot. Some dealers will tell you that the circle P was issued to enlisted men and the square p was issued to officers.

Ted

Well, actually the P in a circle indicates those guns that were sent to the battle of the Pusan perimeter in 1950.
remember-the guy who lies first doesn't stand a chance

__________________
Forum consigliere

CAJUNLAWYER - All so eloquently explained. Thank you.

This is why I wrote Gary in on my NRA ballot!

He gets to the heart of the problem.

Economics and a banned subject make the Merry-go-round spin and spin.

__________________
LEX ET ORDO

So they would become collectable.

__________________
Kenny
Endeavor to persevere.

Yes but bama55 now has 6 post for the 6 years he's been here.

I always figured the deletion of the diamond in the factory stocks was a way to save costs.

The diamonds have made a comeback on some new Smiths, though as others have stated, these grips are made by Altamont and other outside makers. The quality of these new grips are great, but they do not look right. For some reason, the new target style grips on my 586 Classic have diamonds, which look out of place. But worst of all, the grips do not feel anything like old S&W target stocks. They are far too narrow and have little contour to them. They are made well and look good, but are useless for either DA or SA operation.

I never liked the grips on my 27-7.
They looked and felt like cheap imitation Target Stocks to me.

__________________
Kenny
Endeavor to persevere.

I always liked the pre -68 diamond center stocks. I have a Model 36 without diamond. The gun was purchased new in December 1968. I friend of mine has an identical gun made in 1966 that has the diamond.

The finish on the 1966 stocks is darker and smoother. It looks like the finish was hand applied, maybe tung oil? The later stocks without the diamond are lighter colored, the wood does not look as smooth and the finish looks sprayed on.

It would be great to confirm what types of wood finishes were used through the years. I just picked up a very nice pre model 30 with original stocks. The finish on the stocks is like new and typical of S&W quality from the mid 50's.

I have several other post 1967 Smiths with original stocks numbered to the gun. While the older diamond stocks look better the later stocks are still walnut and more attractive than any synthetic material.